alitv of the common life-world bv makingrnthe distinction between primary andrnsecondary qualities, which he borrowedrnfrom the ancient Atomists. Smith’s solutionrnto the bifurcation problem also hasrnan ancient proenance, for his assumptionrnthat discrete components of ourrnlife-world—observer and phenomenon,rntime and space, primary and secondaryrnqualities—are “distinguishable aspectsrnof one and the same reality” harks back,rnthrough Hegel, to Parmenides. Smith’srnapplication of Idealist philosophy to thernforenrost difficulties of atomic physics isrnstriking and compelling, because Idealismrnis not a philosophy often associatedrnwith modern science; yet Smith’s approachrnclarifies many of its difficulties.rnIt has been assumed by many inrnAmerica and England that science supportsrna materialistic, pragmatic, or naturalisticrnpoint of view, but this is becausernthese tendencies are already strong in ourrnculture. Smith notes that independentlyrnminded philosophers such as Husserlrnand Whitehead have seen that modernrnscience is as much a construct of abstractrnideas as an experimental method andrnha’e drawn the appropriate conclusionsrnfrom the ovcdooked fact that scientificrntheories can be understood as ideas, evenrnin the Platonic sense. Smith uses thisrnunderstanding to support an Idealistrn’iew of nature—one that is far morernfriendly to the reality of ideals such asrnjustice, equity, and natural law. ForrnSmith, the scientist’s interaction withrnthe indefinite phenomena of the subatomicrnwodd provides a key to man’s ereati’rnity and a profound reflection ofrnGod’s creativity as well.rnMuch has been written about quantumrnphysics from the scientific, philosophical,rnand cultural points of view; inrnthe last category, however, little has beenrndone from a conservative standpoint,rnwhich is tragic. Although it does notrntouch politics in any direct nranner,rnSmitli’s book is profoundly conservative,rnupholding the traditional understandingrnof the human race as an essential featurernof the physical universe, whose existencerntherefore is no mere accidental confluencernof forces, elements, and so forth.rnStrangely, the doctrine that mankind isrnan irrelevant aspect of the universe is feltrnto be suprcmel)’ liberating by such writersrnas Stephen J. Gould, Bertrand Russell,rnand Carl Sagan.rnFor anyone with an interest in the iirtcraetionsrnbetween modern science andrnculture, modern or postmodern. Smith’srnbook is an excellent rejoinder. If conservatismrnis to reclaim Western culture, itrnwill have to be at the deepest levels ofrncontemporary thought, including thosernwhere science and culture meet.rn]ohn Caiazza is an independent scholarrnat Tufts University in Medford,rnMassachusetts.rnU.S.A.: ThernGlobal Commonsrnby Wayne LuttonrnLiving Within Limits: Ecology,rnEconomics, and Population Taboosrnby Garrett HardinrnNew York: Oxford University Press;rn352 pp., $30.00rnThe Immigration Dilemma:rnAvoiding the Tragedy ofrnthe Commonsrnby Garrett UardinrnWashington, D.C.: Federation forrnAmerican Immigration Reform;rnHO pp., $5.00rnRoper’s February polling of Americansrnreveals a clear consensusrnagainst high levels of immigration.rnEighty-three percent favor a lower levelrnof immigration than the current averagernof over a million a year, and some 70 percentrnsupport a level of immigration belowrn300.000 per year. This view is heldrnby 52 percent of Hispanics, 73 percent ofrnblacks, 72 percent of conservatives, 71rnpercent of moderates, 66 percent ofrnliberals, 72 percent of Democrats, andrn70 percent of Republicans. A majorityrnsupports even larger cuts, with 54 percentrnsaying that annual immigrationrnshould be less than 100,000. Twenty percentrnwant no more immigration at all.rnConcerning illegal immigration, the pollrnconducted for Negative PopulationrnGrowth reveals strong support for toughrnmeasures: self-styled moderates (78 percent),rnthe strongly religious (76 percent),rnwhites (77 percent), Protestants (82 percent),rnand Midwestcrners (85 percent).rnSixty percent of English-speaking Hispanicsrnwant illegal immigration halted,rnas do 68 percent of blacks and 69 percentrnof Catholics. The results confirm whatrnseveral decades of polling on the subjectrnhave consistently shown: that a majorityrnof the public has never supportedrnthe sort of immigration policies institutedrnby Congress and the ExecutivernBranch.rnOn a related matter, a bemused writerrnfor the Wall Street ]ournal reported inrnearly March that a majority of registeredrnRepublican voters express support forrnenvironmental safeguards. That therernare “greenies” among Republicans camernas something of a surprise to the businessrnjournalist. But this merely shows howrnout of touch the GOP’s “leadership” is.rnAfter all, “the environment” is wherernpeople live. And most Americans wouldrnlike to breathe clean air, drink safe water,rnand enjoy the outdoors.rnPerhaps the most feariess and originalrnthinker on the interrelated topics of populationrnand our enironment is GarrettrnHardirr, professor emeritus of humanrnecology at the I’niy’ersity of California atrnSanta Barbara. Now in his 81st year, herncontinues to write craftily argued articlesrn—with another book on the way—rndebunking the optimistic Alfred E. Neumanrnschool of thought so favored by therneditors of the Wall Street journal, thernCato Institute, Julian Simon and BenrnWattenberg, and the Republican congressionalrnleadership, especially MajorityrnLeader Dick Armey. In Living WithinrnLimits, Hardin takes the fundamentallyrnconservative position that on matters relatingrnto the economy, our environment,rnand future prospects, we should alwaysrnhedge our bets and not, like Mr. Mc-rnCawber, simply assume that “somethingrnwill turn up.” As we near the end of thern20th century, mankind confronts a situationrnearlier generations did not have tornconsider. “The time-honored practice ofrnpollute and move on is no longer acceptable,”rnHardin points out. The globe isrnfilled. There are no empty continents.rnHumans have nowhere else to go.rnHardin likens our world to a lifeboat:rnonly a limited number of people can ridernin it before it sinks. And not everyone isrngoing to be saved. The old Enlightenmentrnidea of “progress,” predicated onrnthe assumption of perpetual growth, is irrelevantrnin a world which has a finite carryrning capacity. Sentimentality must notrnbe permitted to cloud our ability to takernmeasures to preserve resources, not onlyrnfor ourselves, but for future generations.rnThus far, countries whose populationsrnhave grown beyond their capacity to carernJUNE 1996/39rnrnrn